[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 49 KB, 680x714, arendt1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4021549 No.4021549 [Reply] [Original]

Was she a self-loathing Jew?

Opinions on Eichmann in Jerusalem?

>> No.4022061

Eichmann in Jerusalem exposes the universality of the state as the anti subjectivity in modernism. At the heart of the Enlightenment state is the willful decision to torture those in state care to death, en masse. This is the regular operation of the enlightenment state and its fundamental purpose. There is no Marat without a Vendee, there is no Washington without whiskey rebellion.

>> No.4022726

>>4022061
Habermas told me we shouldn't give up on the enlightenment.

>> No.4022749

No. I think she was too much of an optimist, though. I don't think she could let herself believe humans were capable of committing such horrible acts, en masse, and enjoying it.

It's too disturbing to think of. I'd like to believe what she believes, but I don't know if that's even scarier.

>> No.4022754

>>4022749
the simplest explanation is that the holocaust was greatly exaggerated by post-war western propagandists.

>> No.4022761

nothing self-loathing about her, she never liked german-jewish "assimilants" and worked for zionist organizations

some jews misunderstood her tone and expected more pathos from the eichmann book. in an interview (with günter gaus) she said that it's the same humour that would let her laugh even if she "had to die three minutes later" hypothetically.

i recommend the interview on youtube, theres a version with english subtitles.

>> No.4022764

>>4022754
Explain.

>> No.4022775

>>4022764
the nazis don't seem evil because they weren't evil. there was no systematic industrial genocide (most claims about gas chambers and ovens and jew-candles have been quietly discarded by serious scholars in the years since the war), just an unfortunate inability to properly feed and vaccinate their pows once germany was put on the back foot and subjected to bombing campaigns by the allies, campaigns that often targeted their supply lines. the final solution was eviction, not extinction.

>> No.4022789

>>4022775
>the final solution was eviction, not extinction.
how does this statement manifest itself in reality?
trains were systematically misdirected?

>> No.4022794

>>4022775
oh man oh gosh oh jeez

>> No.4022799

>>4022775
Except that's fucking wrong, though, /pol/. That's fucking wrong.

Source: Grandparents lived in Auschwitz for several month

>> No.4022807

>>4022789
for starters the allies refused to accept jews being mass relocated to their countries, then the back-up madagascar plan fell through, and by then it was too late, the jews were left to rot in their camps because the nazis had more pressing issues to attend to. most of the jewish deaths were an accident, a tragic accident. the jews that were actually executed were mostly known political subversives - bolsheviks, mostly - although there was undoubtedly some abuse of power by cruel camp guards etc too. the point is, it was never a state sanctioned genocide. and far less than 6 million perished.

>> No.4022812

>>4022799
and they weren't gassed or incinerated or made into candles, presumably.

>> No.4022814
File: 84 KB, 292x330, Screen Shot 2013-07-09 at 18.55.35.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4022814

>>4022775

>> No.4022815

>>4022807
so nazis would sanction the death of millions soviet POWs, but death of millions jews was a tragic "accidents"? lel

>> No.4022816

>>4022799
Don't try and argue with him mate; there's none so blind as those who won't see.

>> No.4022831 [DELETED] 

>>4022816
i guarantee i've given the topic a more open-minded, two-sided examination than you have. you're a dogmatist and a victim of the biggest propaganda campaign of all time. the holocaust simply does not hold up under close scrutiny.

>> No.4022838

OH BOY ANOTHER HOLOCAUST DENIAL THREAD

>> No.4022842

>>4022831
No I'm not. I don't want to discuss it with you because members of my family did die there and stooping to your level is disrespectful to them.

>> No.4022849

>>4022842
>>>/jidf/

>> No.4022852

>>4022849
Way to prove me right.

>> No.4022854

>>4022852
well you said you weren't interested in level-headed discussion, only teary-eyed emotional appeals, so you might as well just fuck off.

>> No.4022858

>>4022854
Go back to /pol/ you tiresome wanker.

>> No.4022933

>>4022812
Why did nazis not say this at war crimes trials, then?

>> No.4022956

>>4022761
I read the opposite. Gershom Scholem hated her for not being a zionist.

>> No.4022970

>>4022933
torture

>> No.4022981

>>4022956
i dont know his reasons.
for example when she left germany and arrived in france she worked for an organization that helped jewish children leave germany and move to palestine. (Youth Aliyah)

>> No.4022982

>>4022970
Evidence?

>> No.4022984

>>4022775
>>4022807
What I do find interesting is that the allies didn't accept jews into their countries and the allies didn't bomb the concentration camps.

They all knew what was happening but only chose to fight because Hitler was stepping on their toes directly.

After the war, when the allies couldn't ignore what had happened, they gathered evidence and then wagged their moralistic fingers at the Germans " Tisk tisk, How could you do such a thing? Good thing we were morally right 100%"

The Holocaust did happen but the allies only cared about it after it had all taken place and after the war had been won.

I admire the rare individual like Mencken, who was antisemitic and still demanded that America accept the jews. There was more altruism in this one man than all of the allied countries combined.

>> No.4022993

>>4022981
He hated Eichmann in Jerusalem and thought she wasn't Zionist enough and didn't stand with her fellow Jews.

I recall reading the exact opposite of what you said. She hated non-assimilated Jews and thought they were crazy.

>> No.4022998

>>4022984
the bombenholocaust and atomic bombs and rape of berlin are just as evil as anything the nazis did. it was a dirty war all round.

>> No.4023005

>>4022993
she thought it was crazy to stay in germany after 1933. but she never felt sympathy for assimilants in general.

>> No.4023011

>>4022775
Name one serious historian who denies the holocaust and is NOT of Arabian descent or has ties with extreme rightwing groups.

>> No.4023014

>>4023011
>and is NOT of Arabian descent

Wow man that's pretty racist.

>> No.4023016

>>4023005
You got a source on that?

Wasn't she an assimilant herself?

I remember reading somewhere that she hated eastern european Jews and believed they were crazy.

>> No.4023018

>>4022933
They did. Goering and other high ranking Nazis said that they had never heard of these accusations and didn't believe them.

>> No.4023019

>>4022984
The war was only won because of Stalin.

Communism saved the day, I guess.

>> No.4023024

>>4023016
You're confusing thinking the guys in the hats and the secular people who wanted to build Israel. Neither of these are assimilants.

>> No.4023027

>>4023024
Wait, so you're saying she supported Orthodox Jews and Zionists?

>> No.4023035

>>4023011
Yehuda Bauer. He's not a Holocaust denier (and neither am I), but he backs up some of the arguments made in this thread, e.g. that the 'Final Solution' was never extinction and that there were deliberate myths -- many of which are still commonly believed -- about the Holocaust spread by the Allies as a part of their 'denazification' campaign.

>> No.4023041

>>4023016
in the interview with günter gaus, when he asked her to describe the attitude of her mother and their relationship. and later when they talked about political climate during early 30s

>> No.4023045

>>4022775
Find me a serious widely accepted peer review academic historic study on your case.

>> No.4023048
File: 147 KB, 610x887, fuck you i pick my own name and run my own country.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4023048

>>4023019
>communism saves the world
>rewarded with half a century of hassle and warfare, either outright or through propaganda and indoctrination
>still holds its own for the longest time, nearly makes it to the millennium
>"oh, didn't work guys, guess liberal democracy and capitalism are all we've got now :D"

>> No.4023049

>>4021549
A more comprehensive examination of Arendt's theory concerning the rise of anti-Semitism in the parts of Europe she does discuss (mostly Germany and to a certain extent France ) confronts the reader with yet another problematic conclusion: that the Jews, through their financial and banking activities, played a crucial role in the rise of the absolute monarchies and the modern nation-state. Critical readers cannot help but ask themselves what exactly is going on here, and where these views are coming from.

As Arendt would have it, there were no poor Jews living on the margins of European society, managing to live with difficulty and without political and civil rights. As Arendt would have it, "the Jews" were all bankers, financiers, court Jews and privileged, or in her generalizing language: "The Jews had been purveyors in wars and the servants of kings." Not some individual Jews, but "the Jews."

According to Arendt, "the Jews" always supported the governments in power in whichever country they were living, ... "The Jews," continues Arendt, were responsible for the hatred felt toward them because of their communal seclusion, their non-involvement in politics, their concern solely for themselves and their non-participation in social and class struggles.

And the way Arendt described the atmosphere at the Eichmann trial in a letter to German philosopher Karl Jaspers: "My first impression: On top, the judges, the best of German Jewry. Below them, the prosecuting attorneys, Galicians, but still Europeans. Everything is organized by a police force that gives me the creeps, speaks only Hebrew, and looks Arabic ... And outside the doors, the oriental mob, as if one were in Istanbul or some other half-Asiatic country."

tl'dr She might have been, a little bit.

>> No.4023059

>>4023048
But Stalin killed more people than Hitler did.

>> No.4023064

>>4023045
fucking hell, just look up some functionalist historians. you have no excuse for ignorance in this day and age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism

>> No.4023065

>>4023049
there is no false statement in there.

>> No.4023073

>>4023059
He killed his own people though, not anyone else's, and he didn't have any ideas about making the rest of the world Russia's bitch for the sake of his own ego. Stalin was a much more stable individual and a much safer man to have in charge of a powerful country, unless you were living there. And he laid the foundation for what could've been an immensely successful and beneficial socialist state, even though it was at incredible human cost.

>> No.4023075

>>4023049
>According to Arendt, "the Jews" always supported the governments in power in whichever country they were living, ... "The Jews," continues Arendt, were responsible for the hatred felt toward them because of their communal seclusion, their non-involvement in politics, their concern solely for themselves and their non-participation in social and class struggles.

That's not true in the modern era. Jews are entirely responsible for Bolshevism, for example, and it was primarily that which made them a target for the Nazis.

>> No.4023079

>>4023035
Yes but he also states that Hitler gave orders to exterminate the Jews

>> No.4023085

>>4023075
>Jews are entirely responsible for Bolshevism
[citation needed]

>it was primarily that which made them a target for the Nazis
they also believed in atlantis and ancient aryans, who cares?

>> No.4023087

Heidegger's D made her a nazi.

>> No.4023091

>>4023079
He also never questioned the six million figure

>> No.4023092

>>4023079
No evidence to support this claim.

>> No.4023093

>>4023073
> And he laid the foundation for what could've been an immensely successful and beneficial socialist state, even though it was at incredible human cost.

Is socialism worth an "incredible human cost?"

>> No.4023096

>>4023075
Most bolsheviks hated Jews, see the pogroms

>> No.4023097

>>4023093
was/is western liberalism worth all the wars?

>> No.4023100

>>4023079
and other functionists disagree. it was just an example of a serious _jewish_ historian whose opinions converge with "/pol/"'s on some matters. the anons who just close their ears to anything that doesn't agree with the horrifying myths they were taught in primary school and start shouting "/pol/! /pol! /pol!" are crazy, narrow-minded dogmatists and enemies of rational discourse

>> No.4023103

>>4023093
Socialism in general doesn't cost that. Russian socialism did, because nothing in Russia has ever been cheap in terms of human lives. And I think in the long-term the Soviet state we could've gotten, if not for the Cold War and the poor quality of Soviet leadership after Stalin, would've definitely been worth it.

>> No.4023105

Yet another potentially interesting thread derailed by /pol/.

>> No.4023108

>>4023091
that would get you fired and publicly crucified in this atmosphere. give it a few decades until the wounds have closed a bit more, and i guarantee the number will eventually be revised.

he did deny that 4m jews were exterminated in auschwitz, though.

>> No.4023111

>>4023105
and here you are with the least interesting post in the thread.

>> No.4023117

>>4023105
And yet here you are using their tactics shouting "/pol/!" where they shout "JIDF!" to suppress any discussion that makes you uncomfortable.

>> No.4023119

>>4023103
>Socialism in general doesn't cost that

Because it actually costs a lot more? Like in Maoist china? Is that what you mean?

Stalin and Hitler both ultimately harmed their cause. Hitler only succeeded in making the jews more powerful and basically denying any ethnicity or nationality the right to pride except for the Jews/Israelis.

Stalin showed us that if you want socialist benefits, you need to kill a lot of your own people.

It's an oversimplification, but this is the image we're left with. This is "crisis" of modernity. How to get out of shitty democratic capitalism without getting into shitty Fascism or shitty Communism.

>> No.4023121
File: 53 KB, 362x462, progressive leftist position.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4023121

>>4021549
>self-loathing Jew
Where does this meme come from, any way? I've never seen a self-hating Jew. If anything they're insufferably arrogant and entitled.

>> No.4023129

>>4023119
China is another example heavily influenced by its own history. Mao himself regularly justified his excesses via comparisons with Qin Shi Huangdi, the first Chinese Emperor. Socialism, or the social and political upheaval it required, magnified the violence and brutality of 20th century Russia and China, but it didn't create them.

What harmed socialism most wasn't Stalin, but rather the denial of Stalin; specifically, the terrified retreat from him instead of a balanced assessment of his regime. No lessons were learnt except the false conclusion that the Soviet Union needed to be more liberal and capitalist, which is what led to Gorbachev and the insanity of perestroika and glastnost and the ruination of the Soviet economy.

>> No.4023137

>>4023129
so what are you saying, Stalin and Mao killed only because they tried to start socialism in countries that weren't already developed, like Marx had predicted?

>> No.4023144

>>4023064
Dude they still say it happened
Denying that death caps were planned since 1920 doesn't mean no death camps.

>> No.4023148

>>4023137
A mixture of that and the inherent nastiness of both Chinese and Russian politics prior to the advent of both countries' respective Communist Parties, yes. In times of upset and instability China and Russia have been legendarily brutal to its own people, both for very different and complex reasons rooted in their histories.

A socialist revolution in, say, Germany, or Britain, would involve *some* violence, perhaps to some an unacceptable level of violence. It would never become a cult of personality-led regime or involve a Great Leap Forward or a forced famine. The idea otherwise is the main weapon western liberal capitalism has against socialism nowadays, hence its propagation at every turn, but it's also backed up by absolutely nothing in history.

>> No.4023155

>>4023148
>It would never become a cult of personality-led regime or involve a Great Leap Forward or a forced famine.
No, it would totally be something entirely different from the 100+ experiments ran so far. We just gotta try one more time! And then another time! And one more! It will work out in the end!

>> No.4023162

>>4023073
>He killed his own people though, not anyone else's, and he didn't have any ideas about making the rest of the world Russia's bitch for the sake of his own ego.

To begin with, they weren't 'his' people. This mode of thinking, this sadistic disregard for human life, produced the slave empire that was the USSR. The Soviet Union was one of the most ambitious imperialistic projects of the 20th century, swallowing up the Baltic countries, Poland, The Ukraine, etc. Plus, it also attempted to deprive Finland of its freedom.

If your concept of a great and beneficial nation is that of a bureaucratic hell with a farcical one-party system, no freedom of speech, no freedom of movement, no freedom of art, a nation which speaks only in shoddily euphemistic language that belies a brutal and bloody and vicious reality, then you should seek help.

Being enchanted by Soviet propaganda is kind of like falling for an obvious psychopath, dressed in blood-soaked clothes and wielding a knife, asking you to come behind a dark alley so that he could give you a million dollars.

>> No.4023163

y so offtopic?

>> No.4023173

>>4023162
But anon, Russia already was a slave empire, it just had a malaise of good governance in the 19th century!

>> No.4023188

>>4023155
That's a strawman, anon. The reason so many other 20th century socialist regimes were brutal was because, with no other example, they based themselves on the Soviet Union. This was another great Soviet error; the use of the Eastern Bloc as puppet states built on the Soviet model rather than ever bothering to try to make them beneficial and viable.

>>4023162
The Soviet Union was first reabsorbing territory taken from Russia during World War One, and then trying (in a very misguided way) to secure itself against any further Nazi-style aggression post World War Two.

And I'll say I don't appreciate all your personal slurs. I won't use a word against you as a person; doing so reveals the emotive, fairly weak nature of your argument and turns this whole debate into a typical 4chan mudslinging contest. You shouldn't seek to utilise easy phrases like "bureaucratic hell", "freedom of speech", and "Soviet propaganda" either.

>> No.4023235

>>4023188
Oh look, we have an expert. If facts don't fit the theory, well it's a problem with the facts not the theory.

>> No.4023307

National Socialism has only been tried once and only ended due to a violent take-over. The ideologies farther to the left than that have been tried hundreds of times and fail spectacularly all on their own.

It's clear that if we're going to try another system it must be National Socialism. Anything else is an exercise in insanity and anti-intellectualism.

>> No.4023308

>>4023307
>if we're going to try another system
*if we're going to try another red flavored system

>> No.4023334
File: 71 KB, 425x536, erwin-rommel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4023334

>>4023307
Hitler ruined the possibility of National Socialism, you realize that, right?

You realize that Hitler made the Jews stronger, and gave them an excuse to do whatever the fuck they want, right?

There were aspects of National Socialism that were good and there were Nazis that were good, but Hitler ruined them.

Hitler was a piece of shit.

>> No.4023359

>>4023235
Sarcasm doesn't become you, anon.

>>4023307
National Socialism was a bankrupt non-ideology that ruined Germany. Russia under socialism was a superpower, China under socialism is a great power. Germany under Nazism alienated everyone in the world, tried to prove itself stronger than them, and ended up one of the only non-states in modern history.

>> No.4023373

>>4023359
Nazi Germany almost single handedly conquered Europe.

>> No.4023374

>>4023359
>he thinks China is socialist

Point at him. Release mirth in his direction.

>> No.4023378

>>4021549
No.

She just didn't give the zionists the kind of pseudo-intellectual revenge they expected.

>> No.4023381

>>4023373
Thanks to the Heer, which fought and was run on the same lines as its superior Imperial predecessor, and thanks to British and French weakness and incompetence.

And anyway, what's conquest if it's completely unsustainable?

>> No.4023386

>>4023334
>Hitler ruined the possibility of National Socialism, you realize that, right?
Stalina ruined the possibil.......................etc

>> No.4023388

>>4023374
>he thinks he knows anything about a country he's never been to

>> No.4023394

>>4023173
Citing another's misdeeds doesn't justify your own, which is something so many defenders of communism seem to do. It does seem, though, that Russia is congenitally incapable of not descending into authoritarianism.

>>4023188
Freedom of speech is a very easy and basically universal concept; and though there are degrees of freedom of speech, if you fail to recognize that Soviet Russia didn't have any at all, then you fail to recognize a fact and disqualify yourself immediately.

And I'm sorry if I was mean to you, but it's only because you invite it so readily. You should pay attention to the fact that right after you - rather self-pityingly I should add - accuse me of meanness and not using proper arguments, you proceed to simply assert, rather than prove, the weakness and supposed hysterical emotionality of my argument.

That euphemistic 'reabsorb' is very telling, as if we're talking about a sponge falling into a puddle of water; as if countries which had established their independence on the basis of a shared language and culture deserved to be enslaved (call it for what it is) because at some time in the past these tracts of land had been owned by Russia. (And not all of them had; and those who had been owned by Russia, had also been owned by Sweden, Germany, and many other countries, but in no way does this justify the deprivation of independence established on shared culture and language). You are right that my argument is emotive (we're not bureaucratic Soviet automata here), but that's because it's a fixedly moral and aesthetic argument.

Soviet propaganda was very real and blinded many Western minds to the cruelty that was being practiced. 'Bureaucratic hell' is a stale phrase, I agree, but it's an accurate one, and its staleness doesn't make your apologia any more true.

Millions of real people were butchered for the hypothetical millions of the future who would be heir to a workers paradise (painfully corny idea, this), and they ended up inheriting just another serfdom.

>> No.4023396

>>4023388
... I have been to China, but that is not relevant.

What is relevant is your non-comprehension of economic systems. State capitalism is not socialism.

>> No.4023400

>>4023381
it would have been sustainable if they didn't get jewed

>> No.4023416

>>4023396
only one revisionism at a time itt

>> No.4023417

>>4023388
>one country, two systems

>> No.4023420

>>4023416
You don't know what revisionism is, do you?

>> No.4023423

>>4023420
it's the pc name for, in this case, holocaust denial in its many flavors and communism/socialism denial

>> No.4023425

>>4023307
We don't necessarily need a non-democratic Nationalist + Socialist party though. Europeans might actually vote in that direction and there is no need for an all powerful government and expansive military in that situation.

>>4023334
>implying this will matter when baby boomers and anyone who actually remembers the war dies

>> No.4023429

>>4023423
What kind of denial were you replying to?
China is a capitalist country.

>> No.4023431

>>4023394
See, that's more like it. And my intent wasn't to cite others' misdeeds - rather, to highlight a fundamental problem with 20th century socialism that could with future attempts be avoided, provided we don't descend into blind Soviet worship. And I can definitely tell you that I'm not one of those: I just think that impartial examination of Soviet socialism and its derivatives, what they got right and what they got wrong, is extremely important.

That's true, I did just assert your weakness, which was kind of poor of me. So let's give it a whirl:

I will agree that the Soviet Union required more freedom of speech. If Khrushchev and Gorbachev nearly got one thing right it was their liberalisation in this direction. I would attribute some of the Soviet Union's disdain towards ideas of that variety to its Tsarist predecessors rather than socialism inherently, though not to the point of absolving the CPSU of guilt in that failing.

I think your talk about countries establishing independence, however, depends upon how valid you believe the nation-state is as a concept: and as someone who's studied the best case study of a multinational state, Austria-Hungary, intensely, I believe that the nation-state is not half as vital and "common sense" as it is taken today. States have been constructed on other lines for most of history - and the Soviet Union, as well as the Russian Empire before it, was an attempt to resist this. Unfair? Perhaps. But a mark of outright imperialism? To call it that is to view Russian history through a strictly European lens, and Russia despite its best efforts is not European at heart.

I wasn't denying the existence of Soviet propaganda. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but my reference was made under the impression that you were accusing me of having my own opinions formed through "Soviet propaganda". A harsh thing to assume, but this is 4chan after all.

I would not, of course, assert that the Soviet Union did not have troublesome levels of bureaucracy. But considering the size of any Russian state, let alone a socialist one, surely that's to be expected?

But I am sorry for assuming you were being dumb about this. Your response is much more interesting than I'd have expected from a 4chan thread about both Jews and Marx.

>> No.4023440

>>4023396
But "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is socialism, isn't it?

>> No.4023449

>>4023429
not just china. laos, cuba, the ussr, north korea, vietnam, etc., etc.
communism has never existed in the world, ever. it has never been given a chance. all of those countries were secretly capitalist, and that's why they all failed or are failing.

>> No.4023465

>>4023423
lmao 2.3/1000 troll
made me reply seriously once, nb

>> No.4023470

>>4023440
No, because market structure, private trades on stock exchanges, private investment of capital in majority government owned industry, and so on make it an explicitly state-capitalist economy.

Socialism is when the government "controls the entire means of production on behalf of the populace" and therefore private companies are not allowed to operate in socialist states.

>> No.4023477

IMO I felt this was most instructive

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/misreading-hannah-arendts-eichmann-in-jerusalem/?_r=0&gwh=B71D7092B2D0A5C44EFD24DF7427D96D

>> No.4023484

>>4023449
communism isn't socialism
babby's first muddled edgy Marxist phase

>> No.4023487

>>4023373
>Nazi Germany almost single handedly conquered Europe.
> starting a war on two fronts
> wanting to fail like Napoleon did

Hitler dun goof'd, big time. Don't ever start a war on two fronts and don't ever fuck with Russia winters.

>> No.4023488

>>4023449
>muh strawman
We aren't talking about Mao's China, we're talking about today.
China IS a capitalist country, retard. Have you read the news lately?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043235,00.html
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist

>> No.4023490

>>4023470
>entire
watch your definitions, m8

>> No.4023492

>>4023488
hmm? i'm just summing up >>4023431's thesis

>> No.4023493

>>4023490
Care to refute my post?
No?
Care to post anything resembling an answer to the anus blasting you've just received?

I'll wait, son

>> No.4023506

I still maintain that capitalism with a welfare state is the best of all possible worlds.

The rest of the world just needs to put America in its place and then we will all prosper.

>> No.4023507

>>4023470
The Chinese state defines itself as socialist though, and politically still has a broadly Marxist-Leninist structure. I don't think it's as black and white as China having just gone from socialism to capitalism.

And let's not be rude about this, okay? This is an interesting thread when people are civil (not that I'm accusing you in particular).

>> No.4023512
File: 31 KB, 725x174, 398457.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4023512

>>4023493
so there you go
check def 2. anyway, i don't know why you're playing around in the social science sandbox if you're throwing around grand absolute definitions. if a country is totally controlled by its state, but allows one company, it's suddenly not socialist anymore, according to you.

>> No.4023514

>>4023492
Oh, well. Thought you were talking exclusively about China. Those countries were commies, like China WAS.

>> No.4023519

>>4023514
no they weren't. they all abided by state capitalism.

>> No.4023527

>>4023514
I mean, exclusively about Chinese communism posts, and that you brought those other countries as if I was denying they were.

>> No.4023530

>>4023519
But didn't they at least start off being communists?

>> No.4023537

>>4023530
no. furthermore, it is socialism that is keeping every single capitalist country afloat, as capitalistic systems, due to their inherent contradictions, inevitably fail. each and every one.

>> No.4023540

>>4023507
We'll be cordial then m8y
The Chinese state defines itself as Socialist because it's political manifestation relies on authoritarianism that can only be justified as necessary by the old Socialist rhetoric of "we need a strong authoritarian state for the PEOPLE'S sake."

Meanwhile it's economic manifestation (the companies that it holds stock in) are not entirely state owned. Furthermore the economics on the ground in China, the grass roots if you like, are no longer controlled by the state. Any old Tom, Dick, or Harry can work 10 years on a decent wage, save, invest in the means of production (one example I saw was a man who bought one single digger and ended up running a hugely impressive county wide construction company)

Therefore, the state has large stakes in private business. This is a different market structure to Socialism, where the state would have 100% of all of the "means of production" i.e. the gentleman could not have purchased the machinery to start his company, and could not have privately paid people for labour.

So while China has not careered into a Ludwig von Mises wet dream, it certainly is no longer socialist. It is state capitalist. It retains a broad Marxist-Maoist party structure and rhetoric (to be precise) because this is the most efficient way for them to justify their power lust.

>> No.4023549

>>4023540
That's interesting. So would you say China is going to get closer or further from the socialist ideal as time goes by? I don't think it will democratize in the western sense, but I can see the market gaining more and more power so long as the CPC can still have some word in economic matters.

>> No.4023550

>>4023512
> if a country is totally controlled by its state, but allows one company, it's suddenly not socialist anymore, according to you.

Yes. And according to Mao, if we're staying with the Chinese socialist current. Is this difficult to compute?

You've actually posted a picture supporting my argument. Apply modern day China to the definition. Does it fit? No. Larger gap between rich and poor, private capital making huge waves in the national & international stock markets, poor welfarism... shall I go on?

>> No.4023552

>>4023550
>shall I go on?
go till the conclusion

>> No.4023557

>>4022726
Habermas is good, but Horkheimer is better.

>> No.4023561

>>4023540
>>4023507

The point is: how can a country be communist being economically capitalist? Does it make sense to be only politically communist (but not economically)?

China is capitalism without democracy. The only thing that could be called communist about China is the lack of freedom of expression and other civil rights which have little to do with communism itself.

>> No.4023573

>>4023549
I think it inevitably will democratise, because really the Chinese state is and has been for a very long historical time been a bureaucratic machine. They see the example of America and the relation of capital and democratic parties and how easily the two remain in a similar position as the Chinese state-business relations at the moment.

But you're right in that it won't be a democratic process like Western Europe, because it will be more tightly monitored even than Britain's transition OR break out in a huge revolution. I highly, highly doubt the latter.

Market activity is bound to increase too, I can't see any way the state would organise a mass buy-back of assets or why they'd bother when the corruption is so rife that there is barely any difference between government officials and industry leaders. In most provinces they;re the same people. One example I saw was a decision making process on the environmental welfare of a certain river. Guess who the official was making the decision? A factory owner further down the river that was pumping chemicals into the water. So the state and industry have huge connections.

>> No.4023574

>>4023561
... >>4023540 here. I'm agreeing with you, namepleb, please take time to read my post.

>> No.4023584

>>4023573
That's a fresh take on it. Most of the proponents of Chinese democratisation I've spoken to seem to believe in a triumphalist "well democracy is better so the Chinese people will inevitably get it like they did in Russia" kind of half-theory. But I can see the bureaucracy in China yielding to some faux democracy like in Japan or America, in order to preserve its generally high standing amongst the people. It depends really on how much the CPC feels there's a *need* for it to be seen as democratic in the western sense, doesn't it? If there's incentives to it it will happen, though, probably, much like Deng's market reforms.

>> No.4023595

>>4023574
I wasn't trying to refute you, only adding my question to the conversation. Just quoted your post because you had explained what I was implying all the time better than how I could.

>> No.4023598

>>4023595
Sorry, namefriend. Perhaps you're an alright bloke, cheers

>> No.4023614

>>4023584
China being considered a communist country is useful for the state (to justify itself as non-democratic, how was previously said) and to the other capitalist countries and right-wing politicians to blame the lack of freedom and bad conditions of living for Chinese worker population on communism and socialism. So everybody is ok with China being considered a communist country and not being a democracy.

>> No.4023619

>>4023584
Yes, I don't think the former is a solid theory at all. Suddenly going "OH LOOK A WILD DEMOCRACY APPEARS" just because it seems nicer to the peasants would not do. First of all it would be a great deal of risk for very little reward. Nationalism is indeed making a comeback in China and an elected Nationalist party could spark off a great deal of trouble in the South China Sea and SE Asia in general.

So I think, as you say, that the long term pragmatic rewards for democratising whether economic or political (perhaps even one man's hubris, wanting to write his name into the history books by being the one to do it) will be the imperative which the state decides on. The Chinese think quite differently from us Westerners. As a left over from Confuscianism they tend to think well ahead, far ahead of their feasible life time.

I would hardly be surprised if the CPC were doing this now, planning for when all of the current members will be long dead. It's a curious mentality but one we should learn from.

>> No.4023713

>>4023431
>I would not, of course, assert that the Soviet Union did not have troublesome levels of bureaucracy. But considering the size of any Russian state, let alone a socialist one, surely that's to be expected?

This is also has foundations in Tsarist russia. Gogol wrote some brilliant satire (Dead Souls) about Tsarist bureaucracy. I'm no expert in Russian history, but it seems highly unlikely someone would satirize a non-existent social tendency.

>> No.4023721

>>4023488

Using Time magazine as a source. . . pssssh.

>> No.4023796

>>4023721
Nitpicking pathetically as an attempt to dismiss an obvious fact...pssssh.
It's not like China being capitalist is some very recent scientific discovery. You just need to google it or not live under a fucking rock.

>> No.4023813

>>4023796

Suit yourself you quality info-impoverished soul.

>> No.4023825

ITT;
>that one guy who's read some history and Marx about once or twice, and now thinks he's an expert of economics/history

>> No.4023826 [DELETED] 

>>4023813
I don't to find you the best source for a well known fact. You're old enough to look it up yourself.

>> No.4023829

>>4023813
I don't care enough to find you the best source for a well known fact. You're old enough to look it up yourself.

>> No.4023830

>>4023825
>>that one guy who's read some history and Marx about once or twice, and now thinks he's an expert of economics/history
what, /lit/?

>> No.4023831
File: 3 KB, 204x204, 1356259390833.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4023831

>>4023813

>> No.4024267

>>4023557
Except that's false.

>> No.4024296
File: 140 KB, 640x480, 1359975314206.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4024296

>that feel when Stalin didn't kill 20 million russians
>that feel when Hitler didn't kill 20 million jews
>not knowing that both were assholes and fucked up, but that the U.S. and other western powers have fucked shit up just as bad and just use this propaganda to downplay their own sordid pasts

Sure is no critical thinking skills in here

>> No.4024297

All government is the same under the patriarchy. There is no real difference between China, Russia, the Us, or Norway, really.

>> No.4024327

>>4022775
Hey anon, if you're still around, I'd be interested in reading more in depth about this, could you recommend a few historians for me to check out? (please credible ones, not David Duke tier).

>> No.4024342

check out Empire by Hardt and Negri

>> No.4024347

>>4022726
>Habermas told me we shouldn't give up on the enlightenment.
If Zizek told you to take a long march through the institutions, would you?

Class consciousness does not require the intervention of bourgeois intellectuals. It requires the self-activity of the proletariat in comprehending the point of production.

>> No.4024390

>>4024347
But my comrade, without the intellectuals to lead the revolution, who will replace the aristocrats in the new order?

>> No.4024570

>>4024390
I have a large number of head sized baskets fit for Frankfurters.

>> No.4024590
File: 15 KB, 350x254, who.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4024590

>still arguing about the holocaust

>> No.4024597
File: 15 KB, 190x216, 1282528256156.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4024597

>A: Stalin killed more people than the Nazis

>B: But the Nazi crimes were still worse

>A: Why is that?

>B: Because the Nazis did them

>> No.4024601

>>4024597
Only a filthy, low-IQ racist wouldn't understand why that is correct. Back to >>>/pol/

>> No.4024603

>>4024601

I bet you're gonna tell me the Nazis were 'evil' too, aren't you?

Good thing the kids go back to school soon. Should clean this place up a little.

>> No.4024607

>>4024603
You know that we're outbreeding you, right? You pathetic white supremacists must be just shitting your pants in terror at the thought that we 'coloureds' will control every part of the world in less than 100 years.

>> No.4024609

>>4024607

Numerical superiority doesn't equal power you clown. Ask King Darius.

>> No.4024610

>>4024609
>Ask King Darius.
That is more than a little bit difficult given that he is a dead historical character we only know of from Greek propaganda screeds.

>> No.4024615

>>4024610

I bet you would have cheered when the Roman Empire collapsed.

You belong in a sweatshop somewhere making tennis shoes.

>> No.4024617

>>4024609
Maybe not, but how many years will it be before we render you completely irrelevant through miscegenation and competition? 150 years? 200 years? There won't even be any whites left by the middle of the millenium.

We minorities already control America--we've got an African American and a Jew as President and VP, respectively. We've got black ministers into practically every European government. We've pounded affirmative action into the very foundation of Western culture.

Whites are living on borrowed time, you pathetic fascist.

>> No.4024624 [DELETED] 

>>4024615
I am in a sweatshop somewhere making undergradautes.

>I bet you would have cheered when the Roman Empire collapsed.

It is hard to cheer for a process that takes hundred of years, eventually resulting in the downfall of Byzantium.

>> No.4024625

>>4024615
I am in a sweatshop somewhere making undergraduates.

>I bet you would have cheered when the Roman Empire collapsed.

It is hard to cheer for a process that takes hundred of years, eventually resulting in the downfall of Byzantium.

>> No.4024626

>>4024624
>>4024625
>I am in a sweatshop somewhere making double posts.

>> No.4024629

>>4024626
Do people not realize that 4chanx lets you see deleted posts? You look less stupid if you just let the typo stand.

>> No.4024630
File: 37 KB, 432x600, 432px-Gottliebdaimler1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4024630

>>4024617

We made this world, and we will unmake if we please. You just live in it. Vermin are not in power because we exterminate vermin. So it has been, and so it will be.

>> No.4024631

>>4023825
>that one guy that uses libcom.org as a reputable source for political information

>> No.4024632

>>4024630
Keep telling yourself that, cracker. Meanwhile my black neighbour just had her seventh kid.

>> No.4024636

>>4024617
whites = racists, right?

>> No.4024637

>>4024629
Do I look like I give a fuck. Check my deleted posts on fuuka and bitch more.

>> No.4024643

>>4024636
At heart, yes. Whites are a race of closet fascists, eager to subjugate and oppress anything they come into contact with. Breeding them out is necessary for the good of humanity. Quake in your boots, fuccboi.

>> No.4024646

>>4024643
white is a race?

>> No.4024651

>>4024646
Well, we call them cumskins over here.

>> No.4024657

>>4024651
is that because whites already made up all the good epithets?

>> No.4024665

>>4024657
Words are all you've got, fuccboi. We've got the power, and your violent, imperialistic race is going to become nothing but a footnote in the history books. I can almost taste the tears of frustration welling up in those arrogant blue eyes of yours.

>> No.4024686

>>4023121
Chomsky and Finkelstein come to mind, but I guess they fit your description in their own ways.

>> No.4024697 [DELETED] 

What minority are you? Also I don't think Biden is a Jew. A Zionist maybe, but not a Jew.

>> No.4024892

>>4022775
>>4022807
>>4022754
/pol/ I want you to understand why we hate you.
We don't hate you because what you say is "offensive". Remember where fuck you are, we are each about 1 click away from watching women with 12 inch cocks fucking each other. And at one point this site even had guro and loli boards. Oh my God you said nigger! This totally shocks my unenlightened sheeple mind.

No, we hate you because you are the new furfags. You see, the problem with furfags, wasn't that they jerked off to furry shit, it was that they were so fucking obnoxious about it. Everything had to be made furry. Every forum avatar had to be a fursona. They had to constantly broadcast the fact that they were furfags to everyone, and when this was met with derision, they doubled down on their effort. They labeled the rational reaction to their faggotry "fursecution" and actively set out to be the biggest faggots they could possibly be to combat it.

Stormniggers are exactly the same. I have yet to see a single board on this site that doesn't regularly have off topic derails about niggers or jews. Always with craftyjew.jpg and A Wyatt Mann cartoons. It doesn't matter hof off topic it is, /pol/ users can't help but broadcast the fact that they are stormniggers.

What have national socialists trying to whitewash themselves to do with this thread? I mean, really what does it add to the conversation that you can "forget" that even death by negligence is still death? Jack shit. All it does is send out a big loud signal to everyone in the thread that LOOK AT ME! I AM SO RACIST! YOU SHOULD BE OFFENDED!

TL;DR: Stormfags are just the same as furfags only their "fursecution" is called "political correctness".

>> No.4024906

>>4024892
>spamming wall of text copypasta all over /lit/

Jesus Christ fuck off.

>> No.4025227
File: 161 KB, 460x283, 1346957472440.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4025227

Whoa, it's sad to see how quickly a good thread became a shit-storm
I blame the jews.Nah, jk, I blame /pol/ and the trolls who feed them, actually.

>>4024347
>It requires the self-activity of the proletariat in comprehending the point of production.
And this is why class consciousness it's not possible anymore (implying it was remotely possible one day, back in the 19th century).
The project of Enlightenment sounds good, but it will never reach beyond despotism of some kind, maybe because of historical conditions, maybe because the very own nature humans have crafted themselves through out these last millenniums. Shit's fucked, yo.
>>4024597
The point isn't to quantify who killed more or less. Both regimes killed a fuckload of people (Stalin had more time and number of people to kill than Hitler), the point is what was wrong in those regimes, and not to repeat it. One being a worse doesn't make the other ok, that's a retarded assumption used only by stupid apologists (from /pol/, I would add).

>> No.4025249

>>4025227
>And this is why class consciousness it's not possible anymore
Italian Autonomism seems to indicate you're wrong.

>> No.4025262

>>4025249
Some intellectuals aren't THE PROLETARIAT. Remember who keeps ruling Italy, they changed nothing.

>> No.4025263

>>4025262
>we're not living in post-capitalism
Yes, dear, that's correct.

The _fiat plant_ did the learning. Some of the intellectuals were co-researchers in the class.

But the principle, that class composition, recomposition, can occur is real. Classical marxism's predictions of class consciousness aren't incorrect.

>> No.4025328

>>4024327
The exact opposite of that anon would be Raul Hilberg, but he is generally considered the foremost Holocaust scholar, and yes he agrees with the generally accepted stance that the Holocaust was a systematic extermination policy (whether structuralist/functionalist or intentionalist) and that it killed millions of Jews.

You might look into Ernst Nolte, a German historian who has been a major figure in German historiographical debates, some of the fiercest the field of history has ever seen, over a) the veracity of certain claims about the Holocaust, and b) the intentions and intellectual melange of those who question or even deny the Holocaust.

Also Finkelstein of course, The Holocaust Industry and Beyond Chutzpah.

>> No.4025601
File: 74 KB, 625x626, 1375935241489.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4025601

>>4024297
Nice try

>> No.4025669

>>4024347
Habermas is a brilliant intellectual, Zizek is not.

>> No.4026435

>>4025669
Thanks mate, I needed a good laugh to wake me up.

>> No.4026522

>>4023073

>Stalin was a much more stable individual and a much safer man to have in charge of a powerful country

OH GOOD LORD HAHAHAHA. YOU EVER HEARD OF THE PURGES M8EY?

>> No.4026557 [DELETED] 

>>Was she a self-loathing Jew?

Is there any other kind?

>> No.4026997

>>4026435
Zizek does not have one single original idea.

Lacanian explicator. Dogmatic Hegelian.

Habermas is original, brilliant and not scared to swim-against the current in waters infested with academic sheep.

>> No.4027015

>>4026997

Habermas aside, Zizek's idea that the USA "wanted" 9/11 to happen is original, provocative, and supported with arguments of such bombast, I have to give him at least one kudo.

>> No.4027021

>>4027015
>original
Were you around on 9/11? That conspiracy shit was everywhere before the towers even finished falling.

>> No.4027384

>>4027015
Two Lone Gunmen (X-Files) spin off predicted it.

Donald Rumsfeld was watching.

>> No.4027419

>>4025227

>lets blame all the shittiness of our board on a practically non-existent disruptive minority

You're a fucking idiot

>> No.4027428

>>4027015

>implying Shitzek was the first person to realize the United States gained a great deal from the 9/11 attacks

full autist. I was in 7th grade and I figured that out

>> No.4027563

>>4027428
Stalin didn't kill more people than Hitler wtf how stupid are you people that you believe old Robert Conquest numbers that even Robert Conquest won't stand behind anymore.

>> No.4027641

>>4027563

the fuck are you on about dude?

>> No.4028501

>>4027641
He's right. Stalin's numbers are grossly overestimated.

>> No.4029171

>>4027419
YOU are the kind of people I was bitching about.